The Complainant is Adobe Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented Perkins Coie, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Amin Mohammadsalehi, Uranos, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 8, 2020. On May 11, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On May 12, 2020, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. On June 9, 2020, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant uses its trademark ADOBE in connection with various computer software related offerings since 1986 in the United States.
The Complainant owns worldwide rights in its ADOBE trademark, among others, the following United States. trademark registrations for it:
- United States trademark, ADOBE, Registration No. 1,475,793, registered on February 9, 1988;
- United States trademark ADOBE, Registration No. 1,486,895, registered on May 3, 1988; and
- United States trademark ADOBE, Registration No. 1,956,216, registered on February 13, 1996.
The Respondent registered the following Disputed Domain Names:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Disputed Domain Names do not resolve to active websites, except for the Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark, as the Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporates the ADOBE trademarks with the addition of generic terms such as, “center”, “awards”, “max”, and so forth, along with the “.ir” country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”).
Consequently, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks.
Rights or legitimate interest
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks. In addition, according to the WhoIs information, the Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainant further states that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademark of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Names is not authorized. The website associated with the
The Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Specifically, the Respondent advertises that it is “Adobe” by using the Complainant’s exact trademarks and logo, which the Complainant has not authorized.
In addition, the website associated with the
In this sense, it is evident that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in its ADOBE trademark. This shows that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant claims that the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names to pose as the Complainant or the Complainant’s affiliate for commercial gain.
Furthermore, the Respondent benefits from the confusion created by the use of the Disputed Domain Names which wholly incorporate the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks. Consequently, consumers encountering the Disputed Domain Names will likely believe that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant.
In addition, the Complainant alleges that the fame of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in its ADOBE trademark prior to the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.
Finally, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent registered multiple domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks without having prior knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. In this sense, the Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith behavior. The Disputed Domain Names comprise of nine domains, all of which specifically target the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks and products.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Names at issue in this case:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarBased on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are all confusingly similar to the Complaint’s ADOBE trademarks. All of them reproduce the entirety of the Complainant’s ADOBE trademarks.
Finally, neither the ccTLD “.ir”, nor the dictionary terms “center”, “conf”, “press”, “systems”, “talk”, “university”, “iran” or “max” are of any significance to the present assessment of confusing similarity.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names:
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use of the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Names or to use the ADOBE trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Names.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Names.
Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but instead did not reply.
Finally, the Panel finds that the nature of the Disputed Domain Names linked with the website at the Disputed Domain Names carries a risk of implied association or affiliation with the Complainant’s trademarks, where there is none.
As such, the Panel finds that the Complainants has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered between 2013 and 2020, several years after the Complainant registered and used its ADOBE trademarks. The fact that the Respondent uses the Complainant’s logo and trademark in the website at the Disputed Domain Name
Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Disputed Domain Names incorporating its trademarks. Neither the Respondent is an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s product and services in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In addition, the Respondent presented itself as “Adobe Creative and Digital Arts Agency in Iran”. Thus, Internet users might have well been under the impression that it is a website created and operated by a distributor or reseller in the Islamic Republic of Iran of the Complainant with the Complainant’s consent.
The circumstances in the case before the Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Names and it has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complaint’s trademarks and website in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain.
Moreover, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations since the Respondent registered nine domain names which are connected to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 3.1.2 provides: “UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration. This may include a scenario where a respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark-abusive domain names, even where directed at the same brand owner. A pattern of abuse has also been found where the respondent registers, simultaneously or otherwise, multiple trademark-abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of individual brand owners. Panels have however been reluctant to find a pattern of abuse where a single UDRP case merely contains two domain names registered simultaneously by the same respondent directed at a single complainant mark”.
In this case, the Respondent has registered along several years nine domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel concludes that this constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and website in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain, as required by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 30, 2020